Leisurely Moments or Lifetimes? Context and the Study of Leisure, Consumption and Stratification

1. Leisurely Moments or Lifetimes?Context and the Study of Leisure, Consumption and Stratification Paul Lambert, Stirling University Max Bergman, Universität Basel Ken Prandy, Cardiff University May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

2. ‘Leisure / Consumption’ in Stratification studies • Persistence of relationship? • Homology v’s Individualisation v’s ‘Univore/Omnivore’ • Purpose behind relationships • Specification of relationship? • Methods of representing stratification / Unit of analysis • Anticipated importance of LC type: • Some LC patterns not associated with stratification • Some LC patterns are linked to strat. in ‘type’ • Some LC patterns are linked to strat. in ‘degree’ • Veblen • Multiple mechanisms of the LC link • Seemingly contradictory – or still consistent? May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

3. 3 critical empirical contexts? • Longitudinal • Changing LC choices over lifetime • Vulnerability of LC choices to other lifetime changes • Trends: Is evidence of change (period) conflated with lifetime effects (age, cohort) • Regional / geographic – ‘opportunity structures’ • Stratification measures This paper: evidence on these from: • British Household Panel Study 1991-2002 • Swiss Household Panel 1999-2003 May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

4. Measuring Leisure/Consumption • [Table 2] May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

5. Evidence of LC–Stratification associations • [Table3] • Numerous, albeit moderate, associations + • Considerable variations by LC type • Strongest: Computer; dishwasher[UK]; holidays; theatre • Weakest: Washing machine; garden; Sports club[Sw]; Drinking; DIY • Some National differences: Car ownership; dishwasher; 2nd home; sports club; drinking • Remarkable x-national persistence – eg, cinema [Unit & Level of measurement – see later] Conclude: These are consistent with more than 1 theory.. May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

6. Homology v’s Univore/Omnivore • Inconclusive {appropriate data?} [Table 4] #acts-Cam: UK: 2002- 0.36 1996- 0.35 Switz: 1999- 0.32 2002- 0.30 May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

7. Context(1): Regional effects • Consistently moderate cluster effects [Table 5] • X-national difference - larger for UK {household} • UK: Smaller districts greater context • Switzerland: Larger aggregates (urban/rural; language) more significant • LC studies should acknowledge regional context… • Varying impact as regression effects [Tables 5/9] • A number of significant main effects – eg UK London effect • A few examples of LC interactions – eg hhld goods • LC studies should acknowledge regional context, though it probably won’t affect anything else? May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

8. Context(2): representing stratification • [Tables 3 and 6] • Occupational measures • Primarily – same effects regardless of measure • Aside1 – selected examples of categorical structures: non-linearities (T6) and categorical transition assocs (T8) • Aside2 – measures of social interaction, eg CAMSIS • Education[national variation – harmonisation problems] • Income [dominance of household level] • Unit of analysis • Individual – not appealing, but adequate and convenient • Household – usually strongest association • Parental – persistently strong, esp UK; hierarchical schemes • Gender differences – need more exploration May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

9. Longitudinal context 1: Temporal effects [Table 7] • Age • Strong for PC, Cinema; otherwise fairly weak • usually negative quadratic • X-national similarity • Period • Usually LC varies by (categorical) year (NB # years varies) • Cohort • Close equivalence to age • Age + Period or Age + Cohort • Consistent ability to distinguish A + P/C main effects • UK - Age effects most often greater in latest years (12 yrs) • Switz – Age effects sometimes lower in later years (5yrs) May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

10. Longitudinal context 2: LC Transitions [Table 8] • LC history {in} stabilities • Most measures have stability, but non-ignorable within-person transitions (# years varies) • Models for transition propensities • no bivariate relation to stratification scale, but relate to both current, and changes in, stratification class • often associated with age • Common regression finding: T = C + A + Δ + F • Conclude: L/C patterns adjust evolve over life course in a way that is partially influenced by stratification May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

11. Longitudinal context(3): Relative impact of time and stratification • [Table 9] • Stratification effects diminish once account for longitudinal context plus selected regional, household measures • Main effects of linear time period usually minimal • Stratification-Age interaction often positive • Period/Cohort differences insubstantial (short panel spells don’t support this) • Lagged Dep-Var – shifts focus to transitions, diminishes all other explanatory factors May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo

12. Conclusions • Importance of LC type • {Some geographical impacts} • {Small stratification measurement impacts} • Longitudinal impacts: • Age – can be substantial, though varies by LC type - interaction: greater impact of strat. at older ages - role of (age-related) household structure • Period – inconclusive • Cohort – inconclusive • Transitions – substantial importance of state changes May 6th 2005, RC28-Oslo